Support NeoGAF

[MMaRsu]

I got to quote Raist here: So Shadowrun is a 9/10 game? :lol



Protective of the hive, are we?

YUP

 

[dionysus]

Fundamentally, I hate review scores, but they are here to stay and they do affect peoples decisions, so I will state my opinion on this.

As a consumer, we know the price. It is a given. We read reviews for impressions on how good the game is. That is all I want to know at least. The information on how good the game is is not available to us before a purchase normally. If the reviewer bases his review on price vs. quality, he is introducing a value tradeoff that is his personal opinion. It may vary wildly from his readers value tradeoff. Now reviews are ultimately personal opinions, but since the consumer already knows the price, we don't need to know the reviewers value tradeoff, cause we can easily make our own value tradeoff because we know the price.

Here is a hypothetical example to make my point clear. FPS A is 30 dollars but is a full length game with lower production values. FPS B is a 60 dollar game. The reviewer without consideration of price, would give FPS A a 5 and FPS B an 8. The reviewer is extremely price conscious, so considering price he gives FPS A an 8. Now I don't care about price, I just want to play a good game. But I don't understand the extent of the reviewers value tradeoff, so I think they are roughly equivalent games. But I knew the price all along, why not have FPS A get a 5 and then I can choose what I want to buy given the price.

Now I am not advocating that all games be reviewed on the same scale. I think games should be reviewed against their peers. If I had to give a monetary number for each scale, games less than 60 dollars, less than 30, and less than 15 should each have their own independent review scales.

 

[Evazan]

Wow....seems like i missed the crazy train to crazy town this morning....hows the ride going everyone?

 

[Wollan]

Mentioned earlier but..
Price is a concern when reviewing a game imo (it will outdate but still..). What gets me though is how two games can be treated so differently. If I had a copy of Warhawk & a copy of Shadowrun and made fifty people play them, 49 of those would have picked the former when given a choice. One of them is a polished next gen game that has obviously been treated with a lot of love, the other one something more akin to a Source engine mod with a pen&paper license.

Microsoft had none qualms about it, they released it for 60$ and mostly, besides 1up, they got panned for this in reviews. 1up think that this clearly overpriced game is worth a 8.

Only two months after Shadowruns release, Warhawk with it's 24/7 dedicated servers and higher game quality with the retail game being bundled with a (highly reviewed) Bluetooth headset, all that for the same price as Shadowrun. With all that, 1up comes out and threatens Sony about dropping their score if the downloadable version costs 40$. Most full priced games in general could only wish to be on the quality level of Warhawk.

Reviews are personal opinions but they are also a form of guidance. The different treatment between these two is questionable. Stunning actually.

 

[tha_con]

You're doing it right there. You're talking about one review by one person and the editorial mandate being discussed ("the price evaluation would be easy for the potential buyer's to make.") and then saying "these guys" referring to the entire staff of the magazine and online imprint. That's not telling it like it is, that's oversimplification at its most extreme level.

Well, if it does in fact cost $60 in stores, and the game does in fact get docked 1 point, and no one had anything to say about it, would that not mean that 'these guys' in fact think in a collective manner?

I know if I was at the 1up staff, and I heard about this, I'd have something to say, possibly attempt to be a voice of reason. Wouldn't you think if you were senior editor, you'd say "hey, come on, this is rather stupid"?

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

If you want to talk about simplicity, then talk about the stupidity of including price as a deciding argument in a review when a well written review, something no one writer at EGM seems to be capable of producing (possibly because of the limited space format, but then maybe that's something that should changed), would have the same effect and would have this effect regardless of whatever current price point the reviewed game has. And as this point is also supported by other members of the staff, there's certainly nothing wrong with arguing that it's a problem with these guys. In fact, "these guys" could under these conditions apply to a good chunk of game critics, as this mindset and poor standard is hardly limited to EGM.

So what the **** does that have to do with the writing skills of dozens of people? Jesus Christ.

the other one something more akin to a Source engine mod with a pen&paper license.

This was the "similar posts" I was referring to.

 

[arias]

Microsoft had none qualms about it, they released it for 60$ and mostly, besides 1up, they got panned for this in reviews. 1up think that this clearly overpriced game is worth a 8.

Actually, wasn't Shadowrun the title that had some controversy over how it was priced $50 for the PC and $60 for the 360? Does it mean that the PC version would get 9.0 from 1UP? I hope the reviewers made that clear and stuck a memo to their reviewing editors as well...

.

 

[JB1981]

They're also peddling this garbage

First and foremost, WarHawk is a game of ifs. If you can justify paying full price for a multiplayer-only game, if you don't already own a Bluetooth Headset, if you can set aside preconceived notions about the pacing and complexity of open combat games, and if you can find a cooperative and communicative group of regulars to play with...you'll have a hell of a lot of fun.

I mean, are they serious with that shit?

 

[thekad]

With all that, 1up comes out and threatens Sony about dropping their score if the downloadable version costs 40$. Most full priced games in general could only wish to be on the quality level of Warhawk.

1up did not threaten Sony. Joe Rybiski wrote in his review that if the game is overpriced his score will drop a point. He is trying to convey to EGM readers that Warhawk's value could not be taken into account since the price has not yet been released.

 

[Oni Jazar]

All PS3 games should score lower then the Xbox 360 version because you have to pay more for the experience.

 

[JohnyDeepthroat]

Points shouldn't be deducted for price (IMO). Reviewers should just mention their gripes with the price in the body of the review.

i swear sometimes the PS3 hate on 1up is palpable

You swear that it's sometimes readily or plainly seen / obvious?

 

[Vyse The Legend]

The price to perceived value of a product ratio is absolutely important. This is the reason why I am more willing to take a chance on a $30 DS game that scored a 7-8, than a $60 360 game that scored in the same range. The DS game is less of a risk, and you're more likely to enjoy a flawed, yet still entertaining game knowing you paid less for it.

As for Warhawk, I'd eat a big plate of crow if it was priced above $40. It'll definitely be in the $30-40 range, and it is absolutely worth every penny; the headset bundle, even more so, because, for someone like me who doesn't have a bluetooth headset, it's an unbeatable value. Not only do I get an amazing game, but a headset that can be used not only with all my ps3 games but with my actual cellphone.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

Reviews should not take into account price. It should be up to us the consumer to compare the review to the cost.

That's bub kiss. Price should definitely be a factor in a review. Paying more for something that should have been a lower value is a factor.

 

[USD]

Getting down to the question, should price be considered in game reviews, I think yes it should. Price is a part of value, and value is usually factored into reviews, so it should have some weight, albeit small in most cases. People keep pointing fingers at 1UP/EGM, yet this has been happening for a long time, and has negatively impacted the reviews of a couple of recent titles (Shadowrun and Rock the 80s) from multiple reviewers. Personally, I think a full point drop over $10 is a bit extreme, unless it seriously plays into overall value of the game that much (which I doubt).

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

So what the **** does that have to do with the writing skills of dozens of people? Jesus Christ.

The ****? They can't produce reviews that are well written enough to serve as buyer's guides without bluntly referring to price points and supposed value. A well written review should be informative and descriptive enough to allow buyers to judge the price and value by themselves (and it would also effectively make the value of the review itself independent of changes in the pricing of the game), but no one at EGM is capable of producing such a review. Whether this shows a lack of talent in actually writing descriptive text overall or a lack of talent in communicating information within a limited space is irrelevant, as it all comes back to a flaw with EGM.

 

[Jonnyboy117]

One solution to this conundrum is to separate game criticism from consumer advocacy in reviews. This is already sometimes done in an informal fashion, such as in the concluding paragraph of a review.

"Steel Batallion is a very cool mech game with excellent graphics and gameplay. However, it may not be worth the $200 price tag except for hardcore mech fans."

or

"Mario Picross is a decent puzzle game but not one of the best available on DS. However, it's a great value at $20 and is worth checking out even if you're not already a Picross fan."

 

[Belfast]

Sam Kennedy posted this on his blog:

http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=8299344&publicUserId=4561231

When I sit down and think about it, I really have some issues with the idea of a review being boiled down to "whether or not _____ is worth your money." I would think it would be more along the lines of whether or not the item in question is worth your interest, maybe even your time. I'm not sure if those are necessarily better terms for what a review aims to evaluate, but money? I haven't ever questioned that notion until now. If it really is money, then it's money "in general," but not any specific price point.

Buyers of anything make different amounts of income and reviewers, though undoubtedly used to spending at least part of their own on the hobbies or industries they cover, generally have access to review copies of games for free. Somehow, I think opinions change slightly when you're putting up your own money for the same product that's being reviewed. And that can be for better or worse - maybe you can't afford the product or maybe you've anticipated it so much that cost doesn't matter and you are more or less proud to pay that much for a product you want.

In Warhawk's case, we should be looking at whether or not it's a good game. The consensus seems to be that it's well worth whatever they plan on charging for it. Certainly, microtransactions and this whole era of downloadable content has thrown a wrench in the works. Under $30 or dock it a point? Yeah, maybe you have an argument if we're talking about arcade-level games, but in Warhawk's case it's more like digital distribution of a full game (it wouldn't be the first multiplayer-only game people have paid retail price for, helllooo PC gaming). This would no doubt knock some of the retail price off, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be under a certain point or we're all going to freak out like Armageddon is coming.

Anyway, this is basically a "tl, dr" way of saying what's already been implied by several people in this thread - people already know what their own personal financial situations are, so a price point shouldn't really be taken into a final review score/evaluation unless it's completely unholy like someone Bungie suddenly decides they're going to retail HALO 3 for $500 a copy. As a reviewer, just tell them whether or not you think the game is good enough to check out and let the consumer decide if they've got the funds to put towards it.

Otherwise, you're letting your armchair industry analyst side get in on a review that people are probably going to take seriously. Mention the price if you want to or post about it on your blog or on a dicussion forum, but in a professional publication or the website equivalent thereof, let the merits of the game and your experience plating it do the talking.

 

[Hagi23]

more proof that 1up is bias i would be disgusted if i didnt already know they had a agenda.

 

[arias]

First and foremost, WarHawk is a game of ifs. If you can justify paying full price for a multiplayer-only game, if you don't already own a Bluetooth Headset, if you can set aside preconceived notions about the pacing and complexity of open combat games, and if you can find a cooperative and communicative group of regulars to play with...you'll have a hell of a lot of fun.

Wouldn't that make Warhawk a revolutionary, genre-defining title rather than one to be cautious of? Gah.. whatever. This game is still going to make it.

.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

Mentioned earlier but..
Price is a concern when reviewing a game imo (it will outdate but still..). What gets me though is how two games can be treated so differently. If I had a copy of Warhawk & a copy of Shadowrun and made fifty people play them, 49 of those would have picked the former when given a choice. One of them is a polished next gen game that has obviously been treated with a lot of love, the other one something more akin to a Source engine mod with a pen&paper license.

Microsoft had none qualms about it, they released it for 60$ and mostly, besides 1up, they got panned for this in reviews. 1up think that this clearly overpriced game is worth a 8.

Only two months after Shadowruns release, Warhawk with it's 24/7 dedicated servers and higher game quality with the retail game being bundled with a (highly reviewed) Bluetooth headset, all that for the same price as Shadowrun. With all that, 1up comes out and threatens Sony about dropping their score if the downloadable version costs 40$. Most full priced games in general could only wish to be on the quality level of Warhawk.

Reviews are personal opinions but they are also a form of guidance. The different treatment between these two is questionable. Stunning actually.

thanks for saving me some typing/thinking time

QFT

 

[dionysus]

That's bub kiss. Price should definitely be a factor in a review. Paying more for something that should have been a lower value is a factor.

I believe I can make that judgement better than the reviewer since I understand my own value tradeoff, but not his. So I believe his judgement on value just clouds the issue. Everyones got an opinion.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

The ****? They can't produce reviews that are well written enough to serve as buyer's guides without bluntly referring to price points and supposed value. A well written review should be informative and descriptive enough to allow buyers to judge the price and value by themselves (and it would also effectively make the value of the review itself independent of changes in the pricing of the game), but no one at EGM is capable of producing such a review. Whether this shows a lack of talent in actually writing descriptive text overall or a lack of talent in communicating information within a limited space is irrelevant, as it all comes back to a flaw with EGM.

Right now that "they" refers to like four people tops. The dude who wrote the Shadowrun review, the dude who wrote the Warhawk review and their respective editors. And yet you can't go one post without claiming that every writer in the building is garbage.

 

[fortified_concept]

nm

 

[methane47]

If you paid $10 for God of War... would that make it a better game?

If you paid $100 for God of War would that make it a worse game?

 

[Belfast]

The ****? They can't produce reviews that are well written enough to serve as buyer's guides without bluntly referring to price points and supposed value. A well written review should be informative and descriptive enough to allow buyers to judge the price and value by themselves (and it would also effectively make the value of the review itself independent of changes in the pricing of the game), but no one at EGM is capable of producing such a review. Whether this shows a lack of talent in actually writing descriptive text overall or a lack of talent in communicating information within a limited space is irrelevant, as it all comes back to a flaw with EGM.

Maybe publications should start re-reviewing games every time they get discounted at Wal-Mart.

 

[AstroLad]

The price to perceived value of a product ratio is absolutely important. This is the reason why I am more willing to take a chance on a $30 DS game that scored a 7-8, than a $60 360 game that scored in the same range. The DS game is less of a risk, and you're more likely to enjoy a flawed, yet still entertaining game knowing you paid less for it.

I'm all for discussing which games are relatively good values, but these sites and publications have really broad audiences, and for many (though obviously not near a majority) $60 vs. $30 is immaterial--they're just looking for the best gameplay experiences. For others 60/30 is meaningless because they can't afford either. To me, the only way to properly account for this broad audience is to ignore price in scoring, but if relevant, discuss relative value in text.

In many ways, it does come down to whether you view game reviews as solely evaluations of a game's merits as a game or whether you think reviews should take into account broader considerations. I'm a bit taken aback by the shock here, though, as this has been going on for as long as I can remember though usually (but not always) in less explicit forms.

 

[arias]

Right now that "they" refers to like four people tops. The dude who wrote the Shadowrun review, the dude who wrote the Warhawk review and their respective editors. And yet you can't go one post without claiming that every writer in the building is garbage.

; I think it's just clear that it's an organization and the actions of the individuals within it reflect on the organization as a whole. There's a reason why the New York Times has such a strict guideline for journalistic integrity.. one bad apple and the whole basket is gone. Obviously it's not right to paint the whole organization with one broad stroke - but it happens, often -- maybe all the time, still happens, and still will happen.

 

[btrboyev]

I would deduct the score because its a shitty game....the beta totally turned me off of this game..other than flying, the game felt like it was made in 2000.

 

[DCharlie]

not played the game , can`t comment, won`t know the value until i`ve played it. Don`t even know what it`ll cost online yet (shrug)

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

Right now that "they" refers to like four people tops. The dude who wrote the Shadowrun review, the dude who wrote the Warhawk review and their respective editors. And yet you can't go one post without claiming that every writer in the building is garbage.

Well, if it's not an issue with every writer at EGM, then the magazine has even bigger issues with consistent standards than I had given them shit for.

Now, are you going to actually respond to my point, or are you just going to stick with the strawman argument of "you said everyone, but it's not everyone"?

Maybe publications should start re-reviewing games every time they get discounted at Wal-Mart.

As said, unless there are serious changes made to the core game itself, writing good informative and descriptive reviews would make any re-reviews pointless.

 

[fortified_concept]

If you paid $10 for God of War... would that make it a better game?

If you paid $100 for God of War would that make it a worse game?

They should have a scale:

If you buy this game now the score is: 8/10
If you buy this game in a year for 40$ the score is: 8.5/10
If you buy this game in three years for 15$ the score is: 9/10
If you found the game in a dumpster the score is: 10/10!

 

[USD]

Maybe publications should start re-reviewing games every time they get discounted at Wal-Mart.

Or maybe they should re-review when a patch that fixes everything wrong with the game comes out, or when the online community for a game dies or goes sour. Yeah, that's impractical and won't happen.

 

[captive]

They're also peddling this garbage

First and foremost, WarHawk is a game of ifs. If you can justify paying full price for a multiplayer-only game, if you don't already own a Bluetooth Headset, if you can set aside preconceived notions about the pacing and complexity of open combat games, and if you can find a cooperative and communicative group of regulars to play with...you'll have a hell of a lot of fun.

I mean, are they serious with that shit?

Holy shit, where is this from?

 

[kaching]

All PS3 games should score lower then the Xbox 360 version because you have to pay more for the experience.

By the time you get to the Wii, PSP and DS, games should regularly be scoring >100%

 

[Woo-Fu]

I don't believe a reviewer is in a position to make a decision about what a game is worth.

$60 to the reviewer is not the same $60 to everybody else. Just leave that part of the review out. Tell us what the game does include, and how well those different elements work and then we can decided if it is worth whatever pricing is eventually implemented.

 

[Bad_Boy]

If you paid $10 for God of War... would that make it a better game?

If you paid $100 for God of War would that make it a worse game?

The game would be the same. Just the value would be different. Which is why this thread is retarded.

This is the point I was trying to make earlier with that sarcastic post about adding points to scores of older games because they can be purchased for much cheaper now. To me, god of war is was a 9.5/10 game at 50 dollars, and still a 9.5/10 game at 20 dollars. The game is STILL the same at both prices, just the value has changed.

 

[Dorfdad]

I swear Microsoft is also paying off the online magazines as well...

This pretty sums up 1up anymore.. -reputation for 1up

 

[KevinRo]

Mentioned earlier but..
Price is a concern when reviewing a game imo (it will outdate but still..). What gets me though is how two games can be treated so differently. If I had a copy of Warhawk & a copy of Shadowrun and made fifty people play them, 49 of those would have picked the former when given a choice. One of them is a polished next gen game that has obviously been treated with a lot of love, the other one something more akin to a Source engine mod with a pen&paper license.

Microsoft had none qualms about it, they released it for 60$ and mostly, besides 1up, they got panned for this in reviews. 1up think that this clearly overpriced game is worth a 8.

Only two months after Shadowruns release, Warhawk with it's 24/7 dedicated servers and higher game quality with the retail game being bundled with a (highly reviewed) Bluetooth headset, all that for the same price as Shadowrun. With all that, 1up comes out and threatens Sony about dropping their score if the downloadable version costs 40$. Most full priced games in general could only wish to be on the quality level of Warhawk.

Reviews are personal opinions but they are also a form of guidance. The different treatment between these two is questionable. Stunning actually.

The Shadowrun hate in this thread is EPIC in nature. Honestly, if you've ever played Shadowrun you would never compare the game to Warhawk or call it 'something more akin to a Source engine mod'. That's just ridiculous. If you want to see how the game should be played check out www.mlgpro.com and watch the video streams. Thats gaming.

Price is always a factor in reviews. Any review towards a game is opinionated. The treatment is always the same: IT'S THEIR OWN ****ING OPINION. If you don't like it then don't take their word worth a grain a salt.

 

[arias]

By the time you get to the Wii, PSP and DS, games should regularly be scoring >100%

It really explains why Persona 3 got Game of the Month for this EGM issue.



Oh shit

Price is always a factor in reviews. Any review towards a game is opinionated. The treatment is always the same: IT'S THEIR OWN ****ING OPINION. If you don't like it then don't take their word worth a grain a salt.

I think that's precisely what's happening now. It's like a tribal meeting where the villagers meet up to discuss shit. This thread will shape people's opinions of 1UP and whether salt should be taken for future reviews. Also, some will completely disregard 1UP now.

 

[Son of Godzilla]

1up isn't biased. They, just like every other website and magazine, write towards their audience. If Sony wants the PS3 to start having good games they need to make some sales.

 

[Drakken]

Again, reviews should be telling you how good a game is, not whether it's worth your money. That's for you to decide based on how good the reviewer says the game is. The reviewer does not know your budget, he does not know how often you are willing to buy games, he does not know how much you value a certain genre, etc. You do. So, leave it to him to tell you the quality of the game, and leave it to you to decide whether that sounds like something you'd want to buy for x amount of dollars.

EDIT: If they want to say something about whether they think it's worth it in the text, that's OK. The score however should reflect solely the quality of the game.

 

[dionysus]

Games should just go up .5 points every 6 months to take into account price drops, and go down .25 points every 6 months to take into account graphical advances amirite? So pong would be like a 400/10!

 

[itsgreen]

Yes.

Games should be judged with price in mind.

A 20$ game creates other expectations then a 60$ game.

Geometry Wars (or my favorite Catan) for expample are great games voor 5-10$ but for 20 or 30 they are overpriced. They don't meet standards that justify that kind of money.

In some ways it is just like a DS title could get a 10/10 for graphics, sure the graphics on my 360 look way more pretty, but in it's class DS titles (or back to Warhawk: sub 30$ game) it is really good.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

Well, if it's not an issue with every writer at EGM, then the magazine has even bigger issues with consistent standards than I had given them shit for.

Now, are you going to actually respond to my point, or are you just going to stick with the strawman argument of "you said everyone, but it's not everyone"?

Well, that was the main problem I had. The first post I wrote in response to you was saying, if I may paraphrase, "Actually, they have plenty of good writers" and instead of responding to that, you kept talking about the pricing thing, but never failing to include some reference to the entire staff which, if you'll recall, is all I ever bolded or responded to.

But, I do think the editorial mandate to dock a point arbitrarily due to price is naturally absurd.

 

[Duke Togo]

1up isn't biased. They, just like every other website and magazine, write towards their audience. If Sony wants the PS3 to start having good games they need to make some sales.

:lol My how you've baited that hook.

 

[Dorfdad]

1up isn't biased. They, like every other website and magazine, just write towards their audience. If Sony wants the PS3 to start having good games they need to make some sales.

Well if they would keep the middle of the road attitude than that owuld be fine, but the sheer fanboy but kissing of late for the 360 is sicking sure you will get more 360 fans but the PS3 and Wii fans will move elsewhere and when the PS3 moves to #2 in sales will they flip -flop to get us back!?

 

[Evazan]

Ok so wait......just wait.

People are getting thier panties in a ruffle over a reviewer saying that price on a downloadable game is going to effect the score he gives it? How is this even thread worthy?

He's not saying its going to be...."if its $20 dollars then its a 9 but if its $49 its a 5!". He has to take it into consideration...he has to look at the overall value of the game and take that into account. If its overpriced say around $49 for arguments sake...then yeah i can see it taking a point loss on the review becacuse hey these are NEW times just like Sam brought out...when dealing with games that are multi sku/downloadable then yeah you have to take price into account its just common sense.

 

[Bad_Boy]

1up isn't biased. They, just like every other website and magazine, write towards their audience. If Sony wants the PS3 to start having good games they need to make some sales.

:lol

 

[VonGak!]

Sam Kennedy posted this on his blog:

http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=8299344&publicUserId=4561231

LOL, you Rlan and others alike may love EGM for treating you as twits without brains but it sure makes me puke.

Just look at how he dances around the real issue, EGM's double moral.

On one side we have Warhawk in a retail version with extra headset and content or a PSN version which to our knowledge can be shared with up to four friends.

On the other side we have Shadow run, a game which EGM not alone rated quite a bit higher than the rest but which also was released on PC for less than the 360 versions.

There can in no way be any doubt that Warhawk got more value than Shadowrun so why is it only Warhawk which suffers, why wasn't the 360 version of Shadowrun rated a full point under the PC version (please don't claim the PC version is worth a 8.9)?
Is it really because Warhawk is published by Sony and Shadowrun is published by MS?
Where was EGM defending the 360 owners from getting screwed by paying more for a game which runs just as well on a midrange PC?

Yes this thread is filled with 360 owners who like the 1UP/EGM staff can't see the issue in this but by coincidence we also quite often see the very same people crusading PS3 game related threads.
It's like having the devil siding with you in a question about ethics.

 

[AstroLad]

In all the absolutes being uttered here, it should be noted that either side of the "reviewers should/shouldn't take value into consideration" debate is reasonable. Discussions of value are immaterial to me, but I don't see why it should have to be that way for everyone.